July 2015

Feb 08, 2007

John Edwards: "The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa
McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people,
and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant
language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's
intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in
giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they
have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign
anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great
debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be
hijacked."

Maybe David finds it hard to believe that there was no intent to malign anyone's faith by describing the immaculate conception in crude sexual terms or in categorizing a central belief of Christianity as a myth.

By the way, I applaud Edwards' statement that he, too, found such views to be offensive and intolerant.

I'd think far more of her if she stood behind what she wrote and didn't attempt to deny the obvious that she did mean to malign and offend. Maybe Edwards would have fired her. Maybe not. But at least you'd know you're dealing with someone who's straight up rather than someone who will obfuscate and grovel to keep a job.

I don't know much about Donohue, but my impression of him is that he's a crybaby. I'm not into victimology or people who make public careers out of complaining, and my limited exposure to him gives me the impression that that's what he does.

As to Edwards -- not that my opinion is worth very much -- yes, I do believe he's spinning, and I've lost respect for him.

Ed knows way more about Edwards -- maybe he could tell us what he thinks.

I have no reason to disbelieve him that he is dismayed by some of their previous work.

I expect he's furious at the people who hired them without planning for this entirely predictable eventuality.

He was in something of a lose-lose situation, but I guess he felt that he needs the lefty netroots now and has time to win over people dismayed by his staffers; and that he would look weaker for firing them than for keeping them; and, perhaps, that drawing a bright line between earlier work on personal sites and any opinions expressed while employed by the campaign is the only workable solution in the blog era.

Ed's take on this is right on the money. The passion and loyalty in the netroots is far more important than a story that will blow over in the lapdog press after a couple of news cycles.

Plus, if you're going to hire bloggers and the bloggers you hire have never written anything to offend anybody, then it's a safe bet they're going to suck as bloggers. Hell, even Mr. Ed, who is as balanced and sane as they come, sometimes throws in a snark that someone could take offense at. It's rare, but it happens.

drawing a bright line between earlier work on personal sites and any opinions expressed while employed by the campaign is the only workable solution in the blog era.

If using offensive language and behaving like idiots were cause for dismissal in the world of politics, the Child King and Babysitter Shooter would both have been impeached long ago.